Sure you have. They simply didn't tell you they were an atheist and you assumed otherwise or, more likely, didn't think of them in a religious/non-religious context.
I would assert that there is a much higher concentration of atheists on slashdot than is present in the general public in the U.S. Check the discussions. It's actually quite rare for a religious/anti-religious statement to come up unless the story specifically brings up the topic.
By all means, check it for yourself. Look at all of the users who have been unabashed atheists in this discussion and read their previous posts. See how many of those posts are discussing religion when the story topic is not related to religion.
Think of it this way: All of those guys who wear purple underwear just come out and announce it within a day of me meeting them. It's annoying.
With that in mind, are you *positive* that you've known about the underwear choice of every man you've met? Are you sure at least one of them wasn't concealing their purple underwear fetish?
Atheists are everywhere. E-V-E-R-Y-W-H-E-R-E-!-!-!
Death to software mixers, long live hardware mixing. I think windows also can do software mixing via direct sound, but your direct sound apps have to support it...
Why death to software mixers? Unless you are really CPU-bound, they should sound the same. It's not like there's anything special about code that's burned into a ROM as opposed to code that's resident in RAM. The only reason that 3D apps need hardware OpenGL routines is because the main CPU has better things to do -- it speeds the game up. As far as I'm aware, software mixing is nowhere near as CPu-intensive. It it were, there wouldn't have been MOD, S3M, MTM, etc. (multi-channel audio from back in the day) files that were easily handled by my old 386SX-16 with 1MB RAM.
If it sounds like crap, it's because the software's crap not any inherent property of software-driven mixing.
And yes, Windows can do software mixing, but apps don't have to support it; they just tell Windows to play the sound. The important part is that sound card drivers must be DirectSound compatible.
As for sounding like dirt, I'll leave that to your own ears. Personally, I find that it's the quality (or lack thereof) of my speakers that makes a far greater audio difference than the crappy software mixing. But then again, I'm not an audiophile.
Re:what is wrong with you people
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
But in Alaska and other parts up north, they have a term for when the ice never melts and nothing thaws: permafrost.
The issue isn't that ice is melting during warmer months. The issue is that ice that hasn't melted for centuries/millenia -- ice that isn't supposed to be melting in that part of the world -- is melting. It sucks, really it does.
Give the model of a deck of cards where the first card is the 2 of spades, the second is the 3 of spades, the thirteenth is the ace of spades, the fourteenth is the two of hearts, etc. In other words, each card in the deck (minus jokers) is assigned a number.
When given a number from 1 to 52, spit out the name of the card to which it refers. If you want to make it interesting, tell them to solve it twice, using a different method each time. This has two probable solution types: 52 element lookup table or judicious use of the modulus operator. At the end of the assignment, there is usually a small amount of code (easier for beginners to debug -- easier to grade), but gets the gears turning for people not used to thinking in terms of algorithms.
Keep your eye on those folks who write out a series of 52 if-else-statements or a giant switch statement; they're going to need some tutoring soon.
---
Enter a number as input and spit out that number in hexadecimal and octal.
---
Enter a number under 100 and spit out that number in longhand (36 turns into "thirty six")
---
Read in a variety of data (user's name, age, favorite color, etc.) and spit it back out in a pleasant greeting: "Hello <name>! You are <age> years old and your favorite color is <color>."
---
These aren't horribly difficult -- so you won't drive many people away -- but you still have the opportunity to teach basic I/O, general style, adequate commenting, algorithm efficiency, and (most important) how to approach real-world questions in the step-by-step manner required in programming (multi-threaded/multi-process smart-ass programmers here on/. can shut up now -- this is an introductory class).
Far too many people who program suffer from lifelong-geek syndrome: knowing how to program for so long that they've forgotten what it was like to learn how to program. As long as you demonstrate sufficient patience, anyone can be taught basic programming skills. I truly believe that most can grok pointers as well assuming they stick with programming long enough and have a good enough teacher.
The GPL insists that redistributors of binaries without sources provide an offer in writing to send the sources...
You assume that an offer in writing cannot be in electronic form. Is a README file or LICENSE file not "in writing?" There is no provision of which I am aware that mandates a piece of paper dictating your intentions.
IANAL, but if LICENSE files did not constitute a legally binding contract, how would the BSDL or the GPL ever have an effect? As I said before, I would suggest contacting a lawyer and/or the FSF, but I don't think this is as big a problem as you are making it.
I would suggest talking to a lawyer about it (and/or contacting the FSF), but don't forget snail mail.
You can put just what you need online and provide the complete "source" via CD in the mail if requested. Remember that you can charge for the materials necessary to mail them a copy so that it's not an undue financial burden. If your game turns out to be quite popular, check around for hosting; there are folks out there who have the bandwidth and need a reason for people to come check out their services.
If it doesn't turn out to be that popular a game or folks just don't care about the source (it happens a lot), then it's a moot point anyway. But in the event that it is popular, there are options open to you. If anything, I would think the FSF would rather shell out the server space than let a popular piece of GPL goodness get mired down in programmer exhaustion.
The GPL has to account for people passing copies of GPL-covered software via other means too. I don't know about you but I have manually passed out copies of GPL-covered software to people (I always put the complete machine-readable source code on the same medium as the binaries if I'm distributing binaries). These people deserve source code too.
But then doesn't this make you their distributor?
If I get a CD from GPLCorp Inc. that contains only binaries, make copies of the CD, and give away the copies to a group of people, is GPLCorp Inc. still responsible for sending source to all of these people? Or have GPLCorp Inc.'s resposibilities ended with providing a source CD only to me, and am I now the point of contact for all of these people? I should hope it's the latter.
PostgreSQL is also easy to install, setup, and use (admittedly without replication -- that's true). It is just installed with RPM and "createdb". No biggie.
It's not ACID, but very reliable? That's a bit of an anachronism. ACID isn't a library or a protocol to which you must be compatible -- it's a minimum guideline for reliability. ACID is a contract that says that if you put it in, you will be able to get it out again, unharmed, unchanged, and every time.
Atomicity: In a transaction involving two or more discrete pieces of information, either all of the pieces are committed or none are.
Consistency: A transaction either creates a new and valid state of data, or, if any failure occurs, returns all data to its state before the transaction was started.
Isolation: A transaction in process and not yet committed must remain isolated from any other transaction.
Durability: Committed data is saved by the system such that, even in the event of a failure and system restart, the data is available in its correct state.
----------
In short, by saying that "it's not ACID, yet it's VERY reliable" in reality means "it's not 100% percent reliable, but it's at least 85%."
If I delete a record that is a foreign key reference for other records, will MySQL guarantee that the record cannot be deleted or that every record that points to it is also deleted dependant upon admin preferences? PostgreSQL does.
MySQL has many more utilities to repair and maintain integrity of its databases than PostgreSQL. It's true. But then again, the authors of PostgreSQL have designed and engineered the datastore so that catastrophic data integrity failure cannot occur in the first place. Hardware failures (memory loses bits or hard drive fails to write correctly) can cause it, but even pulling the plug, while putting the most recent changes in jeopardy, will not destroy your committed data.
And before anyone comes forward with tales of PostgreSQL data integrity issues, please check that you are talking about v7.1 or later (available for more than a year).
Now then, on to issues of vacuum. I admit this can be a time sink. As you run updates and inserts on a PostgreSQL database, the indexes are not quite as efficient as they started (hence the need for vacuum) but it's not all bad as that. Most people would only have to run vacuum every night at 3am (or something like that) from a cron job. In short, PostgreSQL requires a minimum level of maintenance for optimum perfomance. Note that I did not say that it needs maintenance to keep your data safe -- only to maintain optimum performance. And nothing replaces good backups for any database.
And before you say, "But PostgreSQL's vacuum locks the table so you can't get work done," please note that 7.2 removes this constraint.
Will someone honestly try to say with a straight face that you would trust a MySQL database with gobs of data for an extended time without performing at least minor maintenance? If someone does, please tell me that they aren't running the German election database...
There is no ISO98 C++ hashmap. What you were using was a vendor extension. As such it probably wasn't put through the same rigourous analysis that every standard container has.
But yes, that sucks. As is the case most of the time, the last 90% of the time.
11 Stable, supported architechtures. All of which are given equal priority.
Impressive but not as important or appealing to the >90% of Linux users who are on x86.
Linux, Hurd, and BSD versions of Debian. Pick
Hurd is probably not a good example at this point as a case study. The first version of Debian's distro for the Hurd has yet to be released (or reach code completion let alone bugfixing or profiling).
A sain process of releasing new software into the system. Start in unstable, work its way into testing, move testing to stable. As opposed to spewing out new releases every time something big happens. Slow, sure, but at least I know that it has been tested properly.
Sane process, yes. However I was under the impression that "testing" was a recent development. Please don't refer to it in a manner that suggests that it has always been this way.
I never said that RedHat was perfect. In fact I have mentioned to the contrary in several posts. I also acknowledge that Debian is in the final stages before release. Believe it or not, but this rant began in the "Better Installer for Debian?" article from a few days ago and I spilled it into this one to make sure the conversation didn't die from age.
However bugfixing should not be an excuse for the installer being at least a year behind for journalling fs in the install and three or four years behind in most other parts of the installer (RedHat 5.0 was easier to install). I imagine that it is because Debian setups are so easy to maintain that install becomes increasingly rare (or maybe the experience of installing was so painful that users avoid it at all costs by keeping a clean system).
At any rate, could someone provide a link or an email address to someone or some project that is working on this. Belive it or not but I would like to help out and not just complain. Considering how verbose I can be, I at least could help on in runtime context documentation.
You obviously haven't looked in the directory which contains the woody install disk images, because it's plain as day.
Mmm hmm... I grant that I could have been more diligent here. I guess I'm just used to every other major distribution not needing a manual for their install -- self explanatory, complete, and all that. But yes, I needed to RTFM here.
ISO images for woody aren't provided yet since the package list is currently changing; however, the instructions on the debian CD site and the scripts there will make you an ISO of this unrelased software easily.
Very good point. My primary focus was on the netinstall images for precisely this reason.
You seem to know exactly what you want, but since www.debian.org doesn't show it to you in big bold letters on the front of the page, why you didn't click on the search button is entirely beyond my comprehension.
Yes, by all means, type in "ReiserFS" into that search box. Please tell me how many documents I must go through in order to find relevent info. But I digress, my main complaint was the fact that Debian's installer is about three or four years behind Caldera, RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake, etc.
I finally finished getting through the network install (writing this with a Mozilla nightly on Woody) and I must say it was one of the most painful experiences I have had with Linux in years. My god, setting up BIND with a few domains was easier than that and that is by no means a compliment.
I will give to one of your points: that the default installer can be improved. For the woody release, it was decided "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
Nice. If it actually gets through the install without crashing, no matter how likely you are to meet a minotaur during the process, it ain't considered broke.
If you really can't wait, make a woody netinst cd with the Progeny installer. Or can you not type "apt-get install pgi" successfully?
Much akin to telling a Linux newbie that they're stupid for not knowing to type "ls" at the bash prompt or why the current directory isn't in the default execution path. Wake up! Before you mentioned it, I had no idea what the Progeny installer was or where to find it or that I should have been looking for it in the first place. The reason you know this is because you use Debian, are familiar with Debian and its satellite distributions, and have known it for long enough that you forget that others don't know it yet.
While you're at it, why not go yell at some 5th graders because they don't know how to solve Algebra problems yet. After all, since you know Algebra, they should be expected to know it too.
Think you can put together a better debian website? Why don't you sign up?
Good point. Although I think Debian would be better off having this Progeny installer worked on. The best installer is one that doesn't require documentation to use in the simplest case. Note: I am NOT saying that documentation isn't important. What I was looking for what something akin to RedHat's "Workstation" or "Server" install. Hell, I would have settled for something as easy as the "Custom" install. But in the end you're right. I should put my code where my mouth is and help out.
At long last! Not the most elegant or obvious solution (in my opinion) but quite acceptable under the circumstances (I already have copies of the netinstall CDs).
This is of course the type of thing that makes the LinuxFromScratch distribution so popular. However, would you suggest setting up a Debian box manually without an install program? Just compile and install the basic system utilites. Compile and install dpkg, apt, dselect, and the rest.
My point is that when I want to learn more about the inner workings of Linux in order to look behind the curtain, I use LinuxFromScratch. Unfortunately LFS doesn't scale when you want to setup more than one box (dozens, hundreds, thousands, etc.). No one uses LFS for a company-wide install because it would be a huge timesink on install and a maintenance headache for IT after it's deployed. After all, how can you be sure that they are all the same configuration if they are all done by hand? People make mistakes. This is another reason why installers exist (It's the primary reason computers exist, but that's another argument). People have already written fine installers for Linux that simplify the process and let people get to what they want to do which most likely does not include hacking the inner workings of Linux. They want to get the web site up, the mail server up. They want to get on with their job which quite often has nothing to do with computers.
You shouldn't have to be an expert with Linux or be a programmer in order to use Linux. You shouldn't even have to be a novice if it's just a workstation. You should be knowledgable if setting up a server -- especially if it's connected to the Net -- but a workstation? Can I do it? Sure. Do I want to go through this just to use another distribution? Hell no!
Take a cue from SuSe: bootable CD that lets you demo Linux without even installing. Why? Because unless the user gets past the install process easily, technical superiority be damned, the user won't be using it long enough to recognize it as better.
Thank you. I may forego ReiserFS and use ext3 instead, but be sure that you recognize the difference between your list and those of other major distributions:
Download most recent version Install most recent version
Voila!
Re:I have used ext3 for months now in Debian.
on
Debian 3.0 (Woody) May 1?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Thank you for the info but once again I must point out that none of this information is apparent from the main web page (or its primary links). If individuals (like myself) are looking into a distribution's feature set, they will not see journalled filesystems as an option; They will see it as an option for Linux, but not Debian. What's the difference? With RedHat, for example, you can set up a kickstart disc to handle bulk, unattended installs of RedHat Linux (since v5 or something like that). Journalled filesystems are available by default in the RedHat installer and therefore are available to kickstart.
Now let's look at Debian: install must be manually performed for each workstation/server and an extra setup tax is imposed to get it working with a journalled filesystem (to beat a dead horse). Therefore Debian doesn't support journalled filesystems. Linux supports them and Debian tags along for the ride.
With regard to Ext3 being "safer." How do you figure? Have you come across more failures (catastrophic or otherwise) with ReiserFS or XFS vs. ext3? Is it safer because you can revert back to ext2? I have not seen the former and don't consider the latter to be an advantage or inherently safer. FWIW I used XFS for months on several boxes both at home and at work and never had any problems. Why did I even try XFS? Because it was easy to setup with SGI's custom installer for RedHat.
And as the AnonCoward mentioned, what does recompiling a kernel have to do with the quality of install programs or a person's choice of distribution? For the record, I can and have patched and recompiled my kernel. I can also program in C, C++, Perl, Java, and a few others. I am well versed in multi-threaded and multi-process programming as well as distributed programming. What are your credentials?
Now that the big-dick thing is out of the way, I feel it necessary to point out that Debian's big advantage over RedHat (aside from being completely volunteer-driven) is maintenance after install while RedHat is historically easier to install. Recently with utilities such as up2date and red-carpet, RedHat has become much easier to maintain. So what is Debian offering me other than a warm, fuzzy feeling? People in general don't start or stop using a particular distribution (or Linux or BSD) because of a warm, fuzzy feeling.
RedHat (and others) are finally catching up with maintenance. If this "if you can't recompile a kernel" crap continues to be spewed from the Debian community, you may find that it gets ignored not because of technical inferiority but because most people don't care about comparitive excellence as long as the job gets done. An easy install program is the first step in making sure you keep people's attention long enough to demonstrate technical excellence.
Yes, I have heard that there are bf- prefixed images that have the 2.4 kernel and ReiserFS/ext3 support.
I have been patient with Debian. I have been persistent with Debian. I come bearing the news to Debian webmasters everywhere that the "bf-something Woody install" is not obvious. Not only in name obscurity when a Debian newbie would only know to look for 2.2 or 3.0 disc images, but also in placement on the website.
I have gone searching in vain for this bf-something install. I have looked in all of the obvious places on the website under such topics as "Getting Debian," "Debian on CD," and ""Download with FTP." This is bullshit. If this is everyone's definition of publically available, I must have missed that day of class. I even download some of those potentially nifty netinstall CD images in the hopes that they simply weren't labelled correctly with the magical bf- prefix.
Believe me, I have gone through a lot more effort than most casual visitors to the Debian site would have gone through. Unfortunately this is one area that Debian could learn from RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, et al in that the others provide an iso image, you download it, you burn it, and off you go. If the newer install with the updated kernel works so well, why hasn't the old installer been mothballed? Why would the old installer be offered? If the new installer has problems that preclude its replacement of the old installer, then the appropriate answer to my previous post would have been "they're working on it and it should be ready when 3.0 is released."
Is it a work in progress? Sure! I acknowledge that. I am used to that. I have no illusions that any Linux distribution is without its rough edges. But how much effort is it really to have in the download area, clearer instructions for creating a up-to-date install disc? All I see is the same old crap that makes me jump through hoops and auto-detects nothing (another gripe that I will forget for now simply because I know my hardware well enought to answer the endless series of questions) while making use of journalled filesystems far from the simple case it should be.
By all means, prove me wrong. By all means, show me an obvious link that demonstrates me to be a dullard who cannot read a web page. I am not above humility. Otherwise I will assume that a clean and complete Debian install is bullshit, must first be excavated by a Debian veteran who knows how to find it, and/or is of no use to the general public. Debian may be a great distribution, but that's pointless if most people can't install easily without sacrificing popular features (like journalled filesystems) or hunting through mailing list archives without really knowing for what they search.
I have been patient. I have been persistent. I come bearing the news to Debian webmasters everywhere that the "bf-something Woody install" is not obvious. Not only in name obscurity when a Debian newbie would only know to look for 2.2 or 3.0 disc images, but also in placement on the website.
I have gone searching in vain for this bf-something install. I have looked in all of the obvious places on the website under such topics as "Getting Debian," "Debian on CD," and ""Download with FTP." This is bullshit. If this is everyone's definition of publically available, I must have missed that day of class. I even download some of those potentially nifty netinstall CD images in the hopes that they simply weren't labelled correctly with the magical bf- prefix.
Believe me, I have gone through a lot more effort than most casual visitors to the Debian site would have gone through. Unfortunately this is one area that Debian could learn from RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, et al in that the others provide an iso image, you download it, you burn it, and off you go. If the newer install with the updated kernel works so well, why hasn't the old installer been mothballed? Why would the old installer be offered? If the new installer has problems that preclude its replacement of the old installer, then the appropriate answer to my previous post would have been "they're working on it and it should be ready when 3.0 is released."
By all means, prove me wrong. By all means, show me an obvious link that demonstrates me to be a dullard who cannot read a web page. I am not above humility. Otherwise I will assume that a clean and complete Debian install is bullshit, must first be excavated by a Debian veteran who knows how to find it, and/or is of no use to the general public. Debian may be a great distribution, but that's pointless if most people can't install easily without sacrificing popular features (like journalled filesystems) or hunting through mailing list archives without really knowing for what they search.
While we're on the topic of improving Debian's installer, the only thing (and I do honestly mean the *only* reason) that kept me from installing it this weekend was the fact that there is no option for a journalled filesystem "out of the box." I don't care if it's ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, or whatever. And no, installing ext2 on one of two large partitions, placing the OS on the ext2 partition, recompiling the kernel, formatting the other partition with a journalled filesystem, moving all of the info from one partition to the other, editing GRUB's config, etc. does not count as "Debian supports journalling filesystems already."
If people are serious about making Debian userfriendly, we need to avoid things like this after a power outage (or bumped powercord):
Enter root password to run fsck: %
Now what? I know, I'm sure many of you know, but what's a casual user to think of this? Add to this the fact that if they run fsck without the correct parameter, they'll be answering yes/no questions until they decide that it just isn't worth it and they install a different distribution or (quite likely) give up on Linux altogether and grab that Win2K CD.
I would love to help out here, but I have no real experience with Debian and its installer. I have some free time though and a programming background; If someone wants some help, reply to this post with some project info.
Folks who want the Sharp product because it runs Linux which I assume makes the price point lower due to (lack of) licensing issues. I'm willing to bet that the makers of Opera made a sweet deal to Sharp to include their browser for cheap.
Maybe developers want it because the development is easier because of the Linux base and Java support? At any rate, the developer that would be most interested in the Zaurus is one which already has *nix code to port, is familiar with *nix, etc. For web content, it would definitely be easier to run Opera on the desktop for the purposes of checking URLs for correctness/compatibility before having to check them all on the Zaurus. Ditto for page developement (edit->save->reload).
The target audience includes folks who use IE, but it also most assuredly includes users of Opera and other "alternative" browsers and users of *nix platforms.
Have you changed your browser agent string into making it think you have IE?
Not that I'm saying for sure that you have (I'm not) but as a general message for the folks who read this post, DON'T CHANGE YOUR USER AGENT STRING! It only makes IE look more common than it already is. If all of the users of Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror pretend that they're IE, webmasters will have no idea that anyone other than IE users come to their site and be more inclined to write IE-only content.
Can't see their site without changing the user agent string? This is where your principles come into play. Do you actually care about and support the "alternative" browsers or do you not really care at all. There is very little middle ground here. The choice is of course yours, but principles are not important while they are convenient. They are only important when you stick by them when they are significantly incovenient.
Here my knowledge of LaTeX is admittedly lacking. Is LaTeX style data separate and distinct from its structural info? If memory serves, it was not. This leaves it no better than HTML once again. Yes, someone can write relatively clean HTML and have all layout info in a separate stylesheet file (CSS), but the language is intimately tied to how it is displayed and there is nothing but "good taste" keeping things neat.
For DocBook, there is *nothing* layout-related. It is all semantic markup. While you could conceivably add (for example) HTML to a DocBook file, it would have to be in a separate namespace and therefore clearly defined as a separate entity. The same thing for MathML. There is nothing keeping you from embedding MathML in a DocBook document. In fact, it's easy. But you clearly see where the two meet. There is never a blurring of the line.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about LaTeX. It would not be my intention to slam it without just cause.
It suffers from the same ailment (although far less so) as HTML; The layout is intimately linked with the content. As long as font size information, background color, text alignment, etc. are part of the document and mixed with section, paragraph, bibliography, etc. there will be trouble.
This is precisely why things like DocBook came into being. It contains absolutely no layout information. It is all about structured content. Layout is handled later by a separate processor. This does not necessarily mean that input must be so sterile. In fact, I believe that a WYSIWYG DocBook editor would be a godsend in providing a "way out" for all of those Word authors but still applying content structure. Perhaps a variation on the Mozilla Composer concept?
And for those who will let go of their emacs when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers, there is at least one XML editor that takes DTDs for input to aid in tag creation and allows for hooks into XSLT processors for "pretty" previews. It called XAE (XML Authoring Environment for Emacs).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you have. They simply didn't tell you they were an atheist and you assumed otherwise or, more likely, didn't think of them in a religious/non-religious context.
I would assert that there is a much higher concentration of atheists on slashdot than is present in the general public in the U.S. Check the discussions. It's actually quite rare for a religious/anti-religious statement to come up unless the story specifically brings up the topic.
By all means, check it for yourself. Look at all of the users who have been unabashed atheists in this discussion and read their previous posts. See how many of those posts are discussing religion when the story topic is not related to religion.
Think of it this way: All of those guys who wear purple underwear just come out and announce it within a day of me meeting them. It's annoying.
With that in mind, are you *positive* that you've known about the underwear choice of every man you've met? Are you sure at least one of them wasn't concealing their purple underwear fetish?
Atheists are everywhere. E-V-E-R-Y-W-H-E-R-E-!-!-!
Why death to software mixers? Unless you are really CPU-bound, they should sound the same. It's not like there's anything special about code that's burned into a ROM as opposed to code that's resident in RAM. The only reason that 3D apps need hardware OpenGL routines is because the main CPU has better things to do -- it speeds the game up. As far as I'm aware, software mixing is nowhere near as CPu-intensive. It it were, there wouldn't have been MOD, S3M, MTM, etc. (multi-channel audio from back in the day) files that were easily handled by my old 386SX-16 with 1MB RAM.
If it sounds like crap, it's because the software's crap not any inherent property of software-driven mixing.
And yes, Windows can do software mixing, but apps don't have to support it; they just tell Windows to play the sound. The important part is that sound card drivers must be DirectSound compatible.
As for sounding like dirt, I'll leave that to your own ears. Personally, I find that it's the quality (or lack thereof) of my speakers that makes a far greater audio difference than the crappy software mixing. But then again, I'm not an audiophile.
But in Alaska and other parts up north, they have a term for when the ice never melts and nothing thaws: permafrost.
The issue isn't that ice is melting during warmer months. The issue is that ice that hasn't melted for centuries/millenia -- ice that isn't supposed to be melting in that part of the world -- is melting. It sucks, really it does.
Give the model of a deck of cards where the first card is the 2 of spades, the second is the 3 of spades, the thirteenth is the ace of spades, the fourteenth is the two of hearts, etc. In other words, each card in the deck (minus jokers) is assigned a number.
/. can shut up now -- this is an introductory class).
When given a number from 1 to 52, spit out the name of the card to which it refers. If you want to make it interesting, tell them to solve it twice, using a different method each time. This has two probable solution types: 52 element lookup table or judicious use of the modulus operator. At the end of the assignment, there is usually a small amount of code (easier for beginners to debug -- easier to grade), but gets the gears turning for people not used to thinking in terms of algorithms.
Keep your eye on those folks who write out a series of 52 if-else-statements or a giant switch statement; they're going to need some tutoring soon.
---
Enter a number as input and spit out that number in hexadecimal and octal.
---
Enter a number under 100 and spit out that number in longhand (36 turns into "thirty six")
---
Read in a variety of data (user's name, age, favorite color, etc.) and spit it back out in a pleasant greeting: "Hello <name>! You are <age> years old and your favorite color is <color>."
---
These aren't horribly difficult -- so you won't drive many people away -- but you still have the opportunity to teach basic I/O, general style, adequate commenting, algorithm efficiency, and (most important) how to approach real-world questions in the step-by-step manner required in programming (multi-threaded/multi-process smart-ass programmers here on
Far too many people who program suffer from lifelong-geek syndrome: knowing how to program for so long that they've forgotten what it was like to learn how to program. As long as you demonstrate sufficient patience, anyone can be taught basic programming skills. I truly believe that most can grok pointers as well assuming they stick with programming long enough and have a good enough teacher.
Good luck with the class.
You assume that an offer in writing cannot be in electronic form. Is a README file or LICENSE file not "in writing?" There is no provision of which I am aware that mandates a piece of paper dictating your intentions.
IANAL, but if LICENSE files did not constitute a legally binding contract, how would the BSDL or the GPL ever have an effect? As I said before, I would suggest contacting a lawyer and/or the FSF, but I don't think this is as big a problem as you are making it.
I would suggest talking to a lawyer about it (and/or contacting the FSF), but don't forget snail mail.
You can put just what you need online and provide the complete "source" via CD in the mail if requested. Remember that you can charge for the materials necessary to mail them a copy so that it's not an undue financial burden. If your game turns out to be quite popular, check around for hosting; there are folks out there who have the bandwidth and need a reason for people to come check out their services.
If it doesn't turn out to be that popular a game or folks just don't care about the source (it happens a lot), then it's a moot point anyway. But in the event that it is popular, there are options open to you. If anything, I would think the FSF would rather shell out the server space than let a popular piece of GPL goodness get mired down in programmer exhaustion.
But then doesn't this make you their distributor?
If I get a CD from GPLCorp Inc. that contains only binaries, make copies of the CD, and give away the copies to a group of people, is GPLCorp Inc. still responsible for sending source to all of these people? Or have GPLCorp Inc.'s resposibilities ended with providing a source CD only to me, and am I now the point of contact for all of these people? I should hope it's the latter.
PostgreSQL is also easy to install, setup, and use (admittedly without replication -- that's true). It is just installed with RPM and "createdb". No biggie.
It's not ACID, but very reliable? That's a bit of an anachronism. ACID isn't a library or a protocol to which you must be compatible -- it's a minimum guideline for reliability. ACID is a contract that says that if you put it in, you will be able to get it out again, unharmed, unchanged, and every time.
Atomicity: In a transaction involving two or more discrete pieces of information, either all of the pieces are committed or none are.
Consistency: A transaction either creates a new and valid state of data, or, if any failure occurs, returns all data to its state before the transaction was started.
Isolation: A transaction in process and not yet committed must remain isolated from any other transaction.
Durability: Committed data is saved by the system such that, even in the event of a failure and system restart, the data is available in its correct state.
----------
In short, by saying that "it's not ACID, yet it's VERY reliable" in reality means "it's not 100% percent reliable, but it's at least 85%."
If I delete a record that is a foreign key reference for other records, will MySQL guarantee that the record cannot be deleted or that every record that points to it is also deleted dependant upon admin preferences? PostgreSQL does.
MySQL has many more utilities to repair and maintain integrity of its databases than PostgreSQL. It's true. But then again, the authors of PostgreSQL have designed and engineered the datastore so that catastrophic data integrity failure cannot occur in the first place. Hardware failures (memory loses bits or hard drive fails to write correctly) can cause it, but even pulling the plug, while putting the most recent changes in jeopardy, will not destroy your committed data.
And before anyone comes forward with tales of PostgreSQL data integrity issues, please check that you are talking about v7.1 or later (available for more than a year).
Now then, on to issues of vacuum. I admit this can be a time sink. As you run updates and inserts on a PostgreSQL database, the indexes are not quite as efficient as they started (hence the need for vacuum) but it's not all bad as that. Most people would only have to run vacuum every night at 3am (or something like that) from a cron job. In short, PostgreSQL requires a minimum level of maintenance for optimum perfomance. Note that I did not say that it needs maintenance to keep your data safe -- only to maintain optimum performance. And nothing replaces good backups for any database.
And before you say, "But PostgreSQL's vacuum locks the table so you can't get work done," please note that 7.2 removes this constraint.
Will someone honestly try to say with a straight face that you would trust a MySQL database with gobs of data for an extended time without performing at least minor maintenance? If someone does, please tell me that they aren't running the German election database...
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/new_learning.pdf
8 C: www.research.att.com/~bs/new_learning.pdf+%22Learn ing+Standard+C%2B%2B+as+a+New+Language%22&hl=en
or in HTML but not as pretty (thank you google)
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:xGAGrn9SmD
There is no ISO98 C++ hashmap. What you were using was a vendor extension. As such it probably wasn't put through the same rigourous analysis that every standard container has.
But yes, that sucks. As is the case most of the time, the last 90% of the time.
Impressive but not as important or appealing to the >90% of Linux users who are on x86.
Hurd is probably not a good example at this point as a case study. The first version of Debian's distro for the Hurd has yet to be released (or reach code completion let alone bugfixing or profiling).
Sane process, yes. However I was under the impression that "testing" was a recent development. Please don't refer to it in a manner that suggests that it has always been this way.
I never said that RedHat was perfect. In fact I have mentioned to the contrary in several posts. I also acknowledge that Debian is in the final stages before release. Believe it or not, but this rant began in the "Better Installer for Debian?" article from a few days ago and I spilled it into this one to make sure the conversation didn't die from age.
However bugfixing should not be an excuse for the installer being at least a year behind for journalling fs in the install and three or four years behind in most other parts of the installer (RedHat 5.0 was easier to install). I imagine that it is because Debian setups are so easy to maintain that install becomes increasingly rare (or maybe the experience of installing was so painful that users avoid it at all costs by keeping a clean system).
At any rate, could someone provide a link or an email address to someone or some project that is working on this. Belive it or not but I would like to help out and not just complain. Considering how verbose I can be, I at least could help on in runtime context documentation.
At the time? No. I had to install it first. Hi chicken! Meet my good friend, Egg.
Mmm hmm... I grant that I could have been more diligent here. I guess I'm just used to every other major distribution not needing a manual for their install -- self explanatory, complete, and all that. But yes, I needed to RTFM here.
Very good point. My primary focus was on the netinstall images for precisely this reason.
Yes, by all means, type in "ReiserFS" into that search box. Please tell me how many documents I must go through in order to find relevent info. But I digress, my main complaint was the fact that Debian's installer is about three or four years behind Caldera, RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake, etc.
I finally finished getting through the network install (writing this with a Mozilla nightly on Woody) and I must say it was one of the most painful experiences I have had with Linux in years. My god, setting up BIND with a few domains was easier than that and that is by no means a compliment.
Nice. If it actually gets through the install without crashing, no matter how likely you are to meet a minotaur during the process, it ain't considered broke.
Much akin to telling a Linux newbie that they're stupid for not knowing to type "ls" at the bash prompt or why the current directory isn't in the default execution path. Wake up! Before you mentioned it, I had no idea what the Progeny installer was or where to find it or that I should have been looking for it in the first place. The reason you know this is because you use Debian, are familiar with Debian and its satellite distributions, and have known it for long enough that you forget that others don't know it yet.
While you're at it, why not go yell at some 5th graders because they don't know how to solve Algebra problems yet. After all, since you know Algebra, they should be expected to know it too.
Good point. Although I think Debian would be better off having this Progeny installer worked on. The best installer is one that doesn't require documentation to use in the simplest case. Note: I am NOT saying that documentation isn't important. What I was looking for what something akin to RedHat's "Workstation" or "Server" install. Hell, I would have settled for something as easy as the "Custom" install. But in the end you're right. I should put my code where my mouth is and help out.
At long last! Not the most elegant or obvious solution (in my opinion) but quite acceptable under the circumstances (I already have copies of the netinstall CDs).
Thank you very much!
This is of course the type of thing that makes the LinuxFromScratch distribution so popular. However, would you suggest setting up a Debian box manually without an install program? Just compile and install the basic system utilites. Compile and install dpkg, apt, dselect, and the rest.
My point is that when I want to learn more about the inner workings of Linux in order to look behind the curtain, I use LinuxFromScratch. Unfortunately LFS doesn't scale when you want to setup more than one box (dozens, hundreds, thousands, etc.). No one uses LFS for a company-wide install because it would be a huge timesink on install and a maintenance headache for IT after it's deployed. After all, how can you be sure that they are all the same configuration if they are all done by hand? People make mistakes. This is another reason why installers exist (It's the primary reason computers exist, but that's another argument). People have already written fine installers for Linux that simplify the process and let people get to what they want to do which most likely does not include hacking the inner workings of Linux. They want to get the web site up, the mail server up. They want to get on with their job which quite often has nothing to do with computers.
You shouldn't have to be an expert with Linux or be a programmer in order to use Linux. You shouldn't even have to be a novice if it's just a workstation. You should be knowledgable if setting up a server -- especially if it's connected to the Net -- but a workstation? Can I do it? Sure. Do I want to go through this just to use another distribution? Hell no!
Take a cue from SuSe: bootable CD that lets you demo Linux without even installing. Why? Because unless the user gets past the install process easily, technical superiority be damned, the user won't be using it long enough to recognize it as better.
Thank you. I may forego ReiserFS and use ext3 instead, but be sure that you recognize the difference between your list and those of other major distributions:
Download most recent version
Install most recent version
Voila!
Thank you for the info but once again I must point out that none of this information is apparent from the main web page (or its primary links). If individuals (like myself) are looking into a distribution's feature set, they will not see journalled filesystems as an option; They will see it as an option for Linux, but not Debian. What's the difference? With RedHat, for example, you can set up a kickstart disc to handle bulk, unattended installs of RedHat Linux (since v5 or something like that). Journalled filesystems are available by default in the RedHat installer and therefore are available to kickstart.
Now let's look at Debian: install must be manually performed for each workstation/server and an extra setup tax is imposed to get it working with a journalled filesystem (to beat a dead horse). Therefore Debian doesn't support journalled filesystems. Linux supports them and Debian tags along for the ride.
With regard to Ext3 being "safer." How do you figure? Have you come across more failures (catastrophic or otherwise) with ReiserFS or XFS vs. ext3? Is it safer because you can revert back to ext2? I have not seen the former and don't consider the latter to be an advantage or inherently safer. FWIW I used XFS for months on several boxes both at home and at work and never had any problems. Why did I even try XFS? Because it was easy to setup with SGI's custom installer for RedHat.
And as the AnonCoward mentioned, what does recompiling a kernel have to do with the quality of install programs or a person's choice of distribution? For the record, I can and have patched and recompiled my kernel. I can also program in C, C++, Perl, Java, and a few others. I am well versed in multi-threaded and multi-process programming as well as distributed programming. What are your credentials?
Now that the big-dick thing is out of the way, I feel it necessary to point out that Debian's big advantage over RedHat (aside from being completely volunteer-driven) is maintenance after install while RedHat is historically easier to install. Recently with utilities such as up2date and red-carpet, RedHat has become much easier to maintain. So what is Debian offering me other than a warm, fuzzy feeling? People in general don't start or stop using a particular distribution (or Linux or BSD) because of a warm, fuzzy feeling.
RedHat (and others) are finally catching up with maintenance. If this "if you can't recompile a kernel" crap continues to be spewed from the Debian community, you may find that it gets ignored not because of technical inferiority but because most people don't care about comparitive excellence as long as the job gets done. An easy install program is the first step in making sure you keep people's attention long enough to demonstrate technical excellence.
Yes, I have heard that there are bf- prefixed images that have the 2.4 kernel and ReiserFS/ext3 support.
I have been patient with Debian. I have been persistent with Debian. I come bearing the news to Debian webmasters everywhere that the "bf-something Woody install" is not obvious. Not only in name obscurity when a Debian newbie would only know to look for 2.2 or 3.0 disc images, but also in placement on the website.
I have gone searching in vain for this bf-something install. I have looked in all of the obvious places on the website under such topics as "Getting Debian," "Debian on CD," and ""Download with FTP." This is bullshit. If this is everyone's definition of publically available, I must have missed that day of class. I even download some of those potentially nifty netinstall CD images in the hopes that they simply weren't labelled correctly with the magical bf- prefix.
Believe me, I have gone through a lot more effort than most casual visitors to the Debian site would have gone through. Unfortunately this is one area that Debian could learn from RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, et al in that the others provide an iso image, you download it, you burn it, and off you go. If the newer install with the updated kernel works so well, why hasn't the old installer been mothballed? Why would the old installer be offered? If the new installer has problems that preclude its replacement of the old installer, then the appropriate answer to my previous post would have been "they're working on it and it should be ready when 3.0 is released."
Is it a work in progress? Sure! I acknowledge that. I am used to that. I have no illusions that any Linux distribution is without its rough edges. But how much effort is it really to have in the download area, clearer instructions for creating a up-to-date install disc? All I see is the same old crap that makes me jump through hoops and auto-detects nothing (another gripe that I will forget for now simply because I know my hardware well enought to answer the endless series of questions) while making use of journalled filesystems far from the simple case it should be.
By all means, prove me wrong. By all means, show me an obvious link that demonstrates me to be a dullard who cannot read a web page. I am not above humility. Otherwise I will assume that a clean and complete Debian install is bullshit, must first be excavated by a Debian veteran who knows how to find it, and/or is of no use to the general public. Debian may be a great distribution, but that's pointless if most people can't install easily without sacrificing popular features (like journalled filesystems) or hunting through mailing list archives without really knowing for what they search.
I have been patient. I have been persistent. I come bearing the news to Debian webmasters everywhere that the "bf-something Woody install" is not obvious. Not only in name obscurity when a Debian newbie would only know to look for 2.2 or 3.0 disc images, but also in placement on the website.
I have gone searching in vain for this bf-something install. I have looked in all of the obvious places on the website under such topics as "Getting Debian," "Debian on CD," and ""Download with FTP." This is bullshit. If this is everyone's definition of publically available, I must have missed that day of class. I even download some of those potentially nifty netinstall CD images in the hopes that they simply weren't labelled correctly with the magical bf- prefix.
Believe me, I have gone through a lot more effort than most casual visitors to the Debian site would have gone through. Unfortunately this is one area that Debian could learn from RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, et al in that the others provide an iso image, you download it, you burn it, and off you go. If the newer install with the updated kernel works so well, why hasn't the old installer been mothballed? Why would the old installer be offered? If the new installer has problems that preclude its replacement of the old installer, then the appropriate answer to my previous post would have been "they're working on it and it should be ready when 3.0 is released."
By all means, prove me wrong. By all means, show me an obvious link that demonstrates me to be a dullard who cannot read a web page. I am not above humility. Otherwise I will assume that a clean and complete Debian install is bullshit, must first be excavated by a Debian veteran who knows how to find it, and/or is of no use to the general public. Debian may be a great distribution, but that's pointless if most people can't install easily without sacrificing popular features (like journalled filesystems) or hunting through mailing list archives without really knowing for what they search.
While we're on the topic of improving Debian's installer, the only thing (and I do honestly mean the *only* reason) that kept me from installing it this weekend was the fact that there is no option for a journalled filesystem "out of the box." I don't care if it's ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, or whatever. And no, installing ext2 on one of two large partitions, placing the OS on the ext2 partition, recompiling the kernel, formatting the other partition with a journalled filesystem, moving all of the info from one partition to the other, editing GRUB's config, etc. does not count as "Debian supports journalling filesystems already."
If people are serious about making Debian userfriendly, we need to avoid things like this after a power outage (or bumped powercord):
Enter root password to run fsck:
%
Now what? I know, I'm sure many of you know, but what's a casual user to think of this? Add to this the fact that if they run fsck without the correct parameter, they'll be answering yes/no questions until they decide that it just isn't worth it and they install a different distribution or (quite likely) give up on Linux altogether and grab that Win2K CD.
I would love to help out here, but I have no real experience with Debian and its installer. I have some free time though and a programming background; If someone wants some help, reply to this post with some project info.
My $0.02
There are garbage collection implementations for C++ -- several actually. Or did you mean a standard garbage collection method?
And Java does have templates. Check out JSR014 and the work done by the authors of Pizza
Folks who want the Sharp product because it runs Linux which I assume makes the price point lower due to (lack of) licensing issues. I'm willing to bet that the makers of Opera made a sweet deal to Sharp to include their browser for cheap.
Maybe developers want it because the development is easier because of the Linux base and Java support? At any rate, the developer that would be most interested in the Zaurus is one which already has *nix code to port, is familiar with *nix, etc. For web content, it would definitely be easier to run Opera on the desktop for the purposes of checking URLs for correctness/compatibility before having to check them all on the Zaurus. Ditto for page developement (edit->save->reload).
The target audience includes folks who use IE, but it also most assuredly includes users of Opera and other "alternative" browsers and users of *nix platforms.
Have you changed your browser agent string into making it think you have IE?
Not that I'm saying for sure that you have (I'm not) but as a general message for the folks who read this post, DON'T CHANGE YOUR USER AGENT STRING! It only makes IE look more common than it already is. If all of the users of Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror pretend that they're IE, webmasters will have no idea that anyone other than IE users come to their site and be more inclined to write IE-only content.
Can't see their site without changing the user agent string? This is where your principles come into play. Do you actually care about and support the "alternative" browsers or do you not really care at all. There is very little middle ground here. The choice is of course yours, but principles are not important while they are convenient. They are only important when you stick by them when they are significantly incovenient.
Here my knowledge of LaTeX is admittedly lacking. Is LaTeX style data separate and distinct from its structural info? If memory serves, it was not. This leaves it no better than HTML once again. Yes, someone can write relatively clean HTML and have all layout info in a separate stylesheet file (CSS), but the language is intimately tied to how it is displayed and there is nothing but "good taste" keeping things neat.
For DocBook, there is *nothing* layout-related. It is all semantic markup. While you could conceivably add (for example) HTML to a DocBook file, it would have to be in a separate namespace and therefore clearly defined as a separate entity. The same thing for MathML. There is nothing keeping you from embedding MathML in a DocBook document. In fact, it's easy. But you clearly see where the two meet. There is never a blurring of the line.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about LaTeX. It would not be my intention to slam it without just cause.
It suffers from the same ailment (although far less so) as HTML; The layout is intimately linked with the content. As long as font size information, background color, text alignment, etc. are part of the document and mixed with section, paragraph, bibliography, etc. there will be trouble.
This is precisely why things like DocBook came into being. It contains absolutely no layout information. It is all about structured content. Layout is handled later by a separate processor. This does not necessarily mean that input must be so sterile. In fact, I believe that a WYSIWYG DocBook editor would be a godsend in providing a "way out" for all of those Word authors but still applying content structure. Perhaps a variation on the Mozilla Composer concept?
And for those who will let go of their emacs when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers, there is at least one XML editor that takes DTDs for input to aid in tag creation and allows for hooks into XSLT processors for "pretty" previews. It called XAE (XML Authoring Environment for Emacs).